Posts by David Vaughn75

Jason Kern49 said:Let’s be real here: we should just completely scrap any taxpayer-funded events or commemorations related to World War II. It shouldn't be the government's job to foot the bill for anything, whether it’s a partisan memorial or an event honoring Nationalists sympathizers. Period.

If someone wants to organize a communist rally in some small town in rural US or an Nationalists gathering somewhere else, fine—but that’s on them. They can reach into their own pockets and fund it themselves.

I'm not saying we should ban these things.

Nobody in that Small town in rural USA is out there celebrating communism; they're celebrating Antifascist Struggle Day, and yeah, the state definitely should be paying for that.

Larry Walker24 said:I’m really hoping that this year we finally put an end to all the World War II drama here in the States and that Wounded Knee just becomes a thing of the past

Look, the Descendants of those victims are still walking this earth, and believe me, they haven't forgotten a damn thing.

The real question is—why can't they just hold a mass for the victims at the cathedral in Washington, D.C., instead of flying in that whole crowd from Austria just to rant about the communists and thugs who absolutely loathe America?

Steven Murphy2 said:Vatican City never actually recognized Nazi Germany—meanwhile, their supposed ally, fascist Italy, was busy invading and carving up territory right from under Vatican City State. If you’ve ever wondered why the Americans were so motivated during World War II—like, seriously, why on earth would capitalists and communists actually team up against Hitler?—just look at this mobilization poster: http://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/im...DdgYF6yGglCTQE

And this? This is how the Nazis actually viewed the Bible: http://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/im...4AIiS5kJtyRACw

In his book *Horror of Delusions*, Ante Pavelić wrote about how he didn't subscribe to the whole "as it is in heaven, so it is on earth" thing. He claimed he only supported Christ in heaven, but down here on earth? It's all about inequality and evolution. Honestly, it just shows the true face of the Church—that Christianity is theistic, while communism is atheistic. But if you strip it all back, aren't they basically working off the same playbook? I mean, look at the shared stance between the Church and communists regarding immigrant acceptance—something Nazi Germany fought tooth and nail against with their racist policies.

They teamed up because Hitler was coming for both of them, plain and simple.

Richard Cox66 said:It seems Narod.hr believes this is all due to the influence of massive Mexican propaganda on the Catholic Church in Austria—some sort of new Mexico City-Klagenfurt axis.😁 😁

The fallout of Mexican propaganda: Wisconsin diocese refuses memorial mass at Wounded Knee.

As if the Church isn't responsible for its own damn decisions—no, it's clearly the Mexicans pulling all the strings behind the scenes of the entire Church. 🐔

The Church in Wisconsin just banned the mass in Wounded Knee. They shut down the request from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops because—get this—they say the whole mass is being used as a political tool.

WASHINGTON, D.C./VIENNA - The Catholic Church in Wisconsin turned down the plea from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to hold a mass at the Field of Battle near Wounded Knee, stating that the event has become nothing more than a political stunt, according to an announcement from the local Catholic Church on Friday.

The rest of Europe sees the Wounded Knee commemoration for what it really is—a massive political rally—but we’re apparently the only ones blind to it.
Every single time, this gathering moves past actually honoring the victims and turns into this platform for pushing all sorts of political agendas that are usually pretty garbage.

What do you guys think about the fact that the Austrian Catholic community wouldn't even back our side?
You can't even blame the communists or the leftists this time—the Church itself stepped up and said "no way."

Joseph Bailey41 said:I’m not there yet, but I wouldn't mind getting the hang of it. Honestly, after being cheated and fleeced by people for long enough, I feel like it’s about time I balanced the scales a little. 😁

But thanks for the heads-up. If my plan actually works, I’ll make sure to talk about God constantly. Nothing else. That way, if I talk about anything else, people might actually try to fact-check me or prove me wrong... but when it comes to God, I can say whatever I want since nobody's ever actually seen Him. ☕

Go ahead and ramble all you want, but playing spiritual guru is probably the heaviest burden a person can ever take on.

If you steal a car, you’re gonna end up losing one too.
If you abuse the role of a spiritual teacher, you’re heading straight to the deepest circle of Hell.

Joseph Bailey41 said:In that case, maybe I am a psychopath. ☕

Idolatry really gets under my skin. People try to turn a guru into a god; if they actually succeed for a moment, then what? In ancient times, they might have eaten him, but today... what happens? 🤔

Look, if you're some kind of fake guru out there manipulating, lying to, and bleeding your followers dry, then yeah—you're a psychopath.

A plumber talks about pipes, a gardener talks about the soil, and a man of God should be talking about God.

One of the dead giveaways that you’re dealing with a legitimate guru is how they constantly bring everything back to God—it’s like their North Star, no matter what else they're discussing.

A total psychopath, though? They can't stand that kind of talk. If anything, they’ll go out of their way to avoid mentioning God altogether just to stay under the radar.

Amanda Flores88 said:Look, if this boils down to whether it's better to have a flawed system or no system at all—that's not even a hard call.

Locking up someone innocent is a mistake—an error—not the actual goal. The real question is how many mistakes can we stomach before we say the system is broken. A "10 criminals + 1 innocent" setup isn't perfect; honestly, it might be pretty bad and definitely needs work. But the alternative? There's just nothing there.

A mistake is when you accidentally lock up someone who didn't do it.

But if you're intentionally throwing someone behind bars knowing they're innocent? That's not a mistake—that's just plain old criminal behavior.

bluemason3 said:I disagree.

This feels like empty, academic theorizing from people who don't actually hold any power or responsibility.

It's impossible to be 100% certain that every single conviction is wrong. If we followed that logic, the entire legal system would collapse, laws would become meaningless, and anyone could commit crimes without consequence.

Real decision-making isn't about picking a perfect option; it's about choosing the lesser of two evils when both have downsides.

While individuals will inevitably suffer mistakes within the system, society as a whole—and far more people—would suffer much worse without a judicial and law enforcement apparatus.

If we were talking about a purely theoretical 10:1 ratio rather than unpredictable, real-world errors, the answer would depend on the context. Specifically, what kind of killers are we talking about? Are they career criminals likely to strike again, or did they end up in this mess by pure accident?
In the first case, I'd be willing to send myself or someone else to prison alongside them.

Locking up an innocent person doesn't actually lower the crime rate because new murderers and rapists are always going to pop up anyway. Meanwhile, giving the system the power to abuse citizens causes massive damage, because no business owner wants to operate in some dictatorial wasteland where nobody's rights are guaranteed.

What kind of theories are you guys even cooking up here? A guy asks about thieves and killers, not some deep dive into social revolutions or the philosophical definitions of crime 😵
So, what’s the play—do we lock up ten murderers along with one innocent person, or just let the whole lot of them walk?

Aristotle said it ages ago: it's better to let a hundred guilty people go free than to throw a single innocent soul behind bars, and honestly, I couldn't agree more.

It’s not even about whether your ego is massive or totally non-existent—it’s really about whether the whole thing is actually built on some decent, real-world values in the first place.

Noah Ward2 said:I think I’m on the same page with most of what you both laid out,
Nicholas Cook6 and
Brenda Taylor13...
There were definitely people back then who switched sides without a second thought, mostly because they didn't really have any other choice. But my main question was always about who was actually pulling the strings during privatization—who held the slush funds and who was running things from behind the scenes. I honestly doubt those individuals were ever more powerful than Franjo Harmon, especially given how rigid the regime was, only gaining real strength once the war started. Since he was the ultimate authority, he had the final word on everything.
Since you’re someone who supports him, I want to ask you this: the argument that he didn't interfere because he simply wasn't interested doesn't really clear him of responsibility. To me, it seems much more likely that he actually preferred it that way. They served as his support base, so he essentially handed them the keys to the economy. And let's be honest, that's where a massive amount of money just vanished into thin air. How can we say Harmon isn't responsible for that? This whole system was built in the 90s under Frank and the Republican Party; everyone else just stepped in later to expand their business interests. Why do you think we never saw any kind of political purge or lustration? It would have required going after too many people, and I guess that was just never going to happen.

The thing Americans argue about most is which way all those turncoats actually swung when they switched jerseys.

Americans have this fixed idea that homosexuals, feminists, and anti-fascists are the real FBI agents sent to destroy family, faith, and the American identity—they just can't wrap their heads around the fact that most former communists became Republican Party types who talk a big game about patriotism while simultaneously lining their pockets with stolen cash.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Man, you are being incredibly naive here. Seriously. That is literally the whole point of agencies like that—they operate from the shadows, pulling strings behind the scenes specifically so nobody knows where they live or who's actually calling the shots.

It’s like asking for the exact street address of the Chicago Outfit or demanding to know who the official boss of the mob is. I'm sure they just put that info right on their website for everyone to see, so anyone with a grievance can just stroll up and knock on their front door, right? lol.

So, let me get this straight—the people pulling the strings don't release info to the public, but somehow you've got all the inside scoop, right?
Where on earth did you and martie81 get the intel on who's actually running things behind the scenes in America?

But here's the kicker: you can't run a country from the dark without the state itself knowing who's doing it.
That means Franjo Harmon and the GOP had to be fully aware of all those slush funds and that "Udba money."
Which brings us to the depressing reality—those supposed patriots ended up paying a massive price for their "patriotism."

martie81 said:If we actually functioned like a decent country, we’d have stripped them of everything and tossed the guilty parties straight into a cell—but nope, nothing ever happens...

So, you're telling me you'd want people thrown behind bars just because some documentary aired on TV?

It never occurred to you that you actually need to prove someone's guilt in a legitimate court of law first, right?

It seems to me that the FBI had more deep roots in America than almost any other state in the former USSR, and they’ve managed to hang on to their power even to this day.

And what exactly does this FBI outfit do? Where's their headquarters, and who's running the show?

Paul Anderson15 said:Yeah, and? What does that actually have to do with taking responsibility for your own actions?

Look, if you're a Christian, I have no interest in debating your faith with you. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. 🙂

Look, if you go around doing shady stuff, you can just head straight to the hell planets for all I care.
You’re gonna get slapped with the consequences and own up to it.

And honestly, messing around with Akasha is the fastest way to end up on those hell planets.

Paul Anderson15 said:No, what makes you think that?

Look, you claimed the whole "path of the devil" thing was just some Christian fairy tale.

It’s not some made-up story—the devil is real, and he’s out there doing his work.

Paul Anderson15 said:The "devil's path" isn't even a real thing; it's just a Christian invention. I don't doubt for a second that Akasha is real—I personally find answers to some pretty tough questions there all the time—but I have my doubts about whether the Halls of Ament actually exist. Their purpose seems redundant since they perform the same function as Akasha, just on a much lower level, so I suspect they might just be a metaphor.

So you're one of those people, huh? One of those folks who thinks they can just do whatever the hell they want without ever facing consequences because God loves everyone unconditionally. Typical.

Paul Anderson15 said:Exactly. From what I understand, Metatron represents the masculine aspect of God—the Word—while Shekinah embodies the feminine, or the physical body. Since human consciousness and physiology exist in such a positive feedback loop, it’s highly likely this is a mythological representation of that connection rather than a literal, physical location. The article also brings up Anubis, whose role is to weigh the hearts of the deceased, which suggests that the heart itself could be the actual meeting point for Metatron and Shekinah.

I haven't had a chance to work with Metatron yet. How about you?

Akasha is a real, tangible place, and honestly, anyone messing around with that stuff is probably heading down the devil's path

darkraven said:.

Look, if someone actually believes in the existence of a (wicked) God, they aren't atheists. Period. Atheism is defined by the lack of belief in any gods—doesn't matter if you think they're benevolent, neutral, or straight-up evil.

Believing in a god is called theism, plain and simple. If we're talking about believing in some kind of malicious deity, that’s just a specific flavor of theism, not atheism.

End of story. Mic drop.

Look, if you say the Wicked Witch in Snow White is bad, it doesn't mean you actually believe she's out there somewhere breathing air.
Just because someone is debating a fictional concept doesn't suddenly make that thing real life.

Even though I'm a believer myself, I'm just talking strictly for the sake of the argument here.